--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 23:45 ---
Harald, thanks for your report.
> Reversing the subroutines removes (or hides) the problem.
So does the removal of either the "public :: print" or the PRINT statement in
function FOO.
Are you sure this is a regress
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-07-14 10:21 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you sure this is a regression? I see the same errors with v4.1.2 and
> v4.2.1
> (20070620).
Well, you're right.
The point is that the above snippet is the extract from a larger module
that us
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #21 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 16:36 ---
Another test case
module m
public :: volatile
contains
subroutine foo
volatile :: bar
end subroutine foo
subroutine volatile
end subroutine volatile
end module
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 04:52
---
Putting this back in fixes the new test case in comment #21
Index: primary.c
===
--- primary.c (revision 131752)
+++ primary.c (working copy)
@
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 05:20
---
Oh, I see, the trick is dealing with implicit_11.f90 as well. and around and
around we go.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32760
--- Comment #24 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 14:14 ---
How about the following? If we need a variable as actual argument, one should
either have
allocate(, stat=istat)
or
allocate(, stat=istat, source=bar)
i.e. a ')' or a ','. I think for "istat = ..." the f
--- Comment #25 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 15:09 ---
> i.e. a ')' or a ','. I think for "istat = ..." the flavor is not needed. What
> do you think were it will break now?
Answer: The following. I still wonder whether one should not check it in as
interim solution fo
--- Comment #26 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 22:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=15071)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15071&action=view)
A fix for the PR
This is regtesting as I write. It fixes the first three PRs but not that of
comment #25. I be
--- Comment #27 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 06:00 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> Created an attachment (id=15071)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15071&action=view) [edit]
> A fix for the PR
>
> This is regtesting as I write. It fixes the first thr
--- Comment #28 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 09:34 ---
> > A fix for the PR
> > This is regtesting as I write. It fixes the first three PRs but not that of
> > comment #25.
I'm not so happy about the != '(' in:
+ /* These are definitive indicators that this is a
--- Comment #29 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-02 21:31 ---
With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-02/msg6.html, I still
get an error for the test case in comment #25:
pr32760_2.f90:8.29:
allocate(s(4), stat=istat, source=t)
--- Comment #30 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-03 11:10 ---
With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-02/msg6.html, the test
suite passed without new regression on ppc/intel darwin9, 32 and 64 bit modes.
As discussed on IRC, the test in comment #29 gives an er
--- Comment #31 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 11:30 ---
Subject: Bug 32760
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 3 11:29:27 2008
New Revision: 132078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132078
Log:
2008-02-03 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #32 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 11:32 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
15 matches
Mail list logo
